Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for ‘is a Sign of a Tractable and Commendable Nature:

And in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern.

— George Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior

Last night, a friend sent me a text message that French conductor and flautist Olivier Ochanine’s meeting with SM’s management resulted in somewhat of a commitment to preserve the theater of the Philamlife Building.

Ochanine was supposed to have said, “After a positive meeting, it seems safe to say that Philam Life Theater will be preserved. More info to come soon, included a special concert in honor of the theater.”

Of course, the community surrounding Ochanine will hail SM’s reported decision to keep the theater as a triumph brought about by the tactics they employed — some of which were negative to say the least.

At least, one member of that community thought it was rather justified to use falsehood, fear and intimidation — tactics which are not used by those who truly believe as well practice in intelligent and unrestrained democratic discourse.

It can be argued that profanity is protected by free speech and that would be true. But it is also equally true that profanity maybe regarded as abusive and can be the subject of a libel suit — which can certainly detract from any effort to constructively engage people who may have the power to grant or deny a request.

If Ochanine had publicly used foul language in pursuing his petition, I doubt if either the Sys or the management of SM would have invited him to discuss the fate of the Philamlife Theater and he would have failed in saving the facility from destruction.

I think Ochanine’s decent and rather civil behavior partly demonstrates the right and effective way in pursuing a petition or promoting a cause.

Decency and civility helps immensely in allowing all parties involved to focus on discussing the arguments and facts as well as negotiating a solution or compromise that satisfies all parties.

Protests, angry and otherwise, seem to be warranted if the party being petitioned refuses to grant audience to the petitioners and engage in negotiations.

However, these days certain so called “thought leaders” seem to be more prone to launching a public petition as the first resort.

Thing is, I suspect that if you asked them, “Have you written and filed a complaint?” they would most likely say that they hadn’t and in that respect, a public protest would be quite unfair since the petitioner hasn’t given the party being positioned the opportunity to respond.

Another glaring example of Pinoy Society’s dysfunction is that some of its members eschew undergoing “due process” and engaging in the “proper forum”, saying that it won’t bring about the right results. However, the truth may be that they’re just afraid of displaying their ignorance and like a petulant child, would rather that people just give them what they want.

I was told yesterday by someone who has been the target of another recent “outrage fad” that the reaction to their project was disappointing, because they had gone to some effort to solicit inputs from anyone who cared to share them, for two reasons: 1) It was neither socially nor financially advantageous to have people not supporting the project, and 2) they were aware that, for all their careful planning, it was entirely possible they overlooked something important, and the only way they could learn about it and make a correction was to discuss it with their critics. Who, unfortunately, were not interested in discussing, as that would take valuable time away from shouting and making posters and snarky Twitter comments.

Yeah, I remember of those critics (he looks like Jabah the Hut) bad mouthing the invitation and telling people not to go.

Then when a friend of mine met him, that person said that all he wanted was to have to CSR (Public Relations) account of the company.

Remember those “strike protection rackets” that labor organizations used to threaten factories with?

The same thing is happening all over again, except this time they’re using words like “climate change”, “sea level rise” and “environmental damage” or in one case “national heritage”.

But if you really examine their assertions, it tends to fall apart on the get go. I just don’t have the energy right now, but I intend to list down all these things and make one final rebuttal of each point.

What is this Farol! trying to cover your ass again in the SM issue..you lost your credibility already my friend..no one has any interest anymore to your thoughts/opinions. Maybe you can write about whats your favorite colour, maybe more interesting..otherwise stop writing about SM issue..

Looks like the idiots have been butthurt. Paul has shown that acting in a civil, NON-OFFENSIVE manner has gotten results, instead of crying emo idiocy like a little kid throwing tantrums in public. And like typical Da Pinoy losers, the “slacktivists” will claim that they’ve been “cheated.”

Makes me wonder if the foul-mouthed slactivists are actually on drugs.